Barker v. State

New York State Court of Claims

Barker v. State

207 Misc. 83, 137 N.Y.S.2d 24, 1954 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3562

CourtNew York Court of Claims

DecidedMarch 1, 1954

DocketClaim No. 31801

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 207 Misc. 83 (Barker v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Claims primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Barker v. State, 207 Misc. 83, 137 N.Y.S.2d 24, 1954 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3562 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1954).

Pincite

Opinion

Byan, J.

This is a claim for the appropriation of lands owned by the claimants as tenants by the entirety. The appropriation by the State was made pursuant to section 30 of the Highway [84]*84Law. The map was filed in the office of the Department of Public Works November 19, 1948, in the office of the Department of State November 23,1948, and in the office of the County Clerk of Schenectady County February 1, 1949. The notice of appropriation and map were served on Catherine Barker October 2, 1950, and on William M. Barker March 26, 1951. This claim was filed March 25, 1953.

The Attorney-General has moved to dismiss the claim on the ground that it was not filed within two years of the notice of appropriation. As to the claimant William M. Barker the motion is denied.

Upon the return day of the motion and after oral argument the court afforded opportunity to claimants’ counsel to procure an affidavit from Catherine Barker, who was then out of the State. The affidavit has now been supplied. It does not contradict the affidavit of Clurman, who has stated that October 2, 1950, was the date that he served the notice on her. Mrs. Barker merely avers that she does not recollect the exact date of service.

After he was retained by claimants, their attorney corresponded with the Director of the Rights-of-way Bureau. He now suggests to the court that he was misled by a letter from that official dated August 22,1951. But the correspondence presented to us does not disclose any inquiry by the attorney as to the date of service on Mrs. Barker. Apparently he relied entirely upon the date of service on William M. Barker. The claim was filed one day ahead of the deadline for him.

The motion as to Catherine Barker must be, granted. (Grosser v. City of Rochester, 148 N. Y. 235 ; MacFarland v. State of New York, 177 Misc. 117.) Her remedy is with the Legislature.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Byan, J.

This is a claim for the appropriation of lands owned by the claimants as tenants by the entirety. The appropriation by the State was made pursuant to section 30 of the Highway [84]*84Law. The map was filed in the office of the Department of Public Works November 19, 1948, in the office of the Department of State November 23,1948, and in the office of the County Clerk of Schenectady County February 1, 1949. The notice of appropriation and map were served on Catherine Barker October 2, 1950, and on William M. Barker March 26, 1951. This claim was filed March 25, 1953.

The Attorney-General has moved to dismiss the claim on the ground that it was not filed within two years of the notice of appropriation. As to the claimant William M. Barker the motion is denied.

Upon the return day of the motion and after oral argument the court afforded opportunity to claimants’ counsel to procure an affidavit from Catherine Barker, who was then out of the State. The affidavit has now been supplied. It does not contradict the affidavit of Clurman, who has stated that October 2, 1950, was the date that he served the notice on her. Mrs. Barker merely avers that she does not recollect the exact date of service.

After he was retained by claimants, their attorney corresponded with the Director of the Rights-of-way Bureau. He now suggests to the court that he was misled by a letter from that official dated August 22,1951. But the correspondence presented to us does not disclose any inquiry by the attorney as to the date of service on Mrs. Barker. Apparently he relied entirely upon the date of service on William M. Barker. The claim was filed one day ahead of the deadline for him.

The motion as to Catherine Barker must be, granted. (Grosser v. City of Rochester, 148 N. Y. 235 ; MacFarland v. State of New York, 177 Misc. 117.) Her remedy is with the Legislature.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

207 Misc. 83, 137 N.Y.S.2d 24, 1954 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3562, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barker-v-state-nyclaimsct-1954.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack